Is it hypocritical for JWs to sue over religious discrimination on the job, or school, etc.?

by Theocratic Sedition 3 Replies latest jw friends

  • Theocratic Sedition
    Theocratic Sedition

    At the meetings, in the literature, even the social enviroment mandated upon a born-in, it's constantly reinforced that "we're no part of the world." Considering Jesus and Paul's example, they didn't instigate legal proceedings, but were forced to be the subject of such due to the opposition they recieved. Matter fact, Jesus didn't even bother defending himself, while Paul only defended himself based upon his Roman citizenship and the rights afforded him, not to mention the importance he placed up spearheading missionary work.

    That said, where's the Scriptural precedence for litigation when a JW feels he/she's been treated unfairly on the job over matters like needing vacation time to attend a convention, or holiday participation? Is not that kind of treatment expected in "this system of things?" If so, why not simply "charge it to the game" like a suspected criminal does when pinched? So the principle of a school in the link below gave the two JW teachers a hard time over needing some time off for the assembly. Also, the two were mandated to participate in some holiday activity. Both were non-tenured teachers so they were hired on a year by year basis, and after the previously mentioned events, were not rehired resulting in their decision to pursue a legal recourse. I'm racking my brain trying to come up with a Scriptural precedent supporting their action and coming up short. At one point I thought about Daniel, Meschach, Shadrach, and Abednego(love that last one's name btw, might name my son that) refusing to participate in idol worship under the threat of execution. However that's a case of slaves in a foreign land where this is a case of free individuals attempting to force an employer to adhere to their religious peculiarities.

    While I don't agree with the principle's handling of the matter as it's a public school, I still can't understand the nerve a JW who's "no part of this world" all the while believing they're "living in the last days of this system of things." If that's true, shouldn't the believing JW chalk it all up to Satan, swallow their pride, and move on all while awaiting Jehovah to destroy the principle in the near future?

  • Anator

    The scenario you are describing is prevelant to most JWs in that they believe they are being presecuted for his names sake, therefore accepting abuse or presecution is this case can be viewed as a good thing in JWs eyes. However, Jesus stood up to many things including presecution of the pharasees. You forget that JWs and other religions had to push for religious freedom including the right to freely preach in the door to door work, therefore, I find your arguement somewhat conflicting.

  • trebor

    It is hypocritical, just as expecting freedom of religion but claiming neutrality.

    What if, for instance, everyone in America took a neutral stance during World War II? What if the rest of the world except Germany and their allies did as well? Nazis under Hitler would have ruled the world. The majority of religions, including Jehovah's Witnesses would have been wiped out. The publishing company would have been broke and destroyed. If not for soldiers who fought for freedom, Jehovah's Witnesses would not have the liberties they enjoy today. They'll wear their neutrality stance as a badge of pride while crying to the hilltops about their religious rights and freedom to exist, all while dismissing the obvious and simple conclusions and reasoning.

    The irony is they are able to claim neutrality and not be killed or imprisoned because of the people who actually fought in wars for such a freedom.

    A very similar scenario with Police Officers and the fact that you cannot make progress in the organization while carrying a gun contains a parallel irony. They discourage such a profession, believing it is not proper for Christians, yet expect the full protection of the law.

    So does “Jehovah” then see all Police Officers and military service people with disapproval? If yes, how do you justify or explain it especially in view of reality of both today’s world and historically? If no, what is the deciding factor?

    Sorry, didn’t mean to derail or go off on a tangent, but your post triggered this response. And the questions certainly are not directed to you Theocratic Sedition – It is to any would be defenders of their stance on the matters.

  • King Solomon
    King Solomon

    Anator said:

    You forget that JWs and other religions had to push for religious freedom including the right to freely preach in the door to door work, therefore, I find your arguement somewhat conflicting.

    Being persecuted for preaching IS part of the sacrifice, and avoiding persecution IS dodging out.

    Jesus clearly said in Matt 5:40 that if someone sues you, you should give them not only what they ask, but also give them your cloak; this is in keeping with his instructions to "turn the other cheek", and his "you will be hated in my name" prophecy.

    Remember, Jesus only used the tools of "Satan's Wicked system" when FORCED to do so, i.e. by being involuntarily placed in the position of being a defendent when prosecuted by the religious courts (eg the Sanhedrin) or dragged before secular courts or secular authorities (eg Pontius Pilate). The same principle applies that JWs would use the courts only after have been dragged into them for violating secular laws against their preaching work. In defending themselves, Xians are being consistent with Jesus' example of political neutrality, of being "no part of this World", including using the Court system to FURTHER their goals, rather than to DEFEND themselves from prosecution/persecution.

    In contrast, the WTBTS has engaged in "friendship with the World" by meddling with court affairs, submitting documents in court cases that are called amicus curiae briefs, even defending Jimmy Swaggert in a court case where they were not named as defendents; they've offered their unsolicited legal opinion in the case!

    From Wikpedia:

    An amicus curiae (also spelled amicus curiæ; plural amici curiae) is someone, not a party to a case, who volunteers to offer information to assist a court in deciding a matter before it. The information provided may be a legal opinion in the form of a brief (which is called an amicus brief when offered by an amicus curiae), a testimony that has not been solicited by any of the parties, or a learned treatise on a matter that bears on the case. The decision on whether to admit the information lies at the discretion of the court. The phrase amicus curiae is legal Latin and literally means "friend of the court".

    In the example provided by Jesus' interaction with Pontius Pilate in John 19, do you see Jesus shooting the bull with Pilate as if he's his friend, offering an unsoliticed legal opinion on not just the matter that brought him before Pontius Pliate, but offering advice on other cases before the Roman Courts?

    Of course not!

    So what part of Jesus' admonition to be "no part of this World" does the WTBTS NOT UNDERSTAND, by submitting unsolicited legal opinions to the Courts of the Land on a broad range of legal matters? "Neutral", my arse....

    Damned straight, as the Swaggart case is yet another example of FDS going rogue, and playing fast with the Master's instructions while the "master" is away.


    But as it pertains to the OP example of suing for wrongful discharge for religious discrimination, JWs should ONLY enter and use the court system when they are forced to, i.e. if named as a defendent, and NEVER as the plaintiff.

    A JW should suck it up, and not run to "Satan's evil and flawed courts" to demand protection under their Constitutionally-protected Civil Rights for wrongful discharge, since they SHOULD think of it as religious persecution, suffering experienced in the name of Jehovah.

    If it's mitigated by seeking redress in "Satan's civil court", then they're seeking redress under Civil law, and not "trusting in Jehovah" to set it straight. Instead, they are allowing Satan, not Jehovah, to fix things, thus allowing the Glory and Justice to serve as a testiment to the Glory of Satan....

Share this